1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: The petitioner questioned the allotment made in favour of respondents Nos.
2. 2 to 5 on the ground that some of it was in excess of their entitlement by filing an appeal before the relevant Settlement authorities and on its failure moved the revisional authority, again unsuccessfully.
3. Undeterred, he again moved the Settlement authorities by filing an apple--cation under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which succeeded and a Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner ordered the cancellation of some part of the allotment holding it to be in excess of the entitlement of the respondents. The above order was challenged in the High Court through a settlement revision which was accepted by a learned Single Judge on two bold grounds, namely :-
(a) that the Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not ignore the earlier orders whereby the Settle--ment authorities bad rejected the plea that the allotment obtained by the respondents were in excess of their entitlement as the principle of res judicata was also applicable in these. Proceedings ; and
(b) since the respondents .Were not responsible for the mistake in the calculation of their entitlement which was committed by the public authorities the same could not be upset.
4. We have heard the learned Advocate in support of this petition. W agree with the learned Judge in the High Court that the principle of re judicata applies also to proceedings before the Settlement authorities However, we do not share his view that an allotment which is in excess of the entitlement of a displaced person made in his favour by public authoritie cannot be cancelled.
5. Such a cancellation is clearly possible under section 11 . Of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
6. Act and the necessary powers thereunder would be available even where the excess allotment .Has. Been made on account of a bona fide mistake of the Settlement authorities.
7. However, since we agree with the learned Judge in the High Court that principles of res judicata were applicable and the Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not, have decide contrarily to the decision taken by the Settlement Commissioner on the same point in earlier proceedings, this petition must fail and is hereby dismissed.